Dr Aafia case: IHC issues contempt notice to PM, cabinet

Business Recorder

6 days ago

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the federal cabinet in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui, seeking the repatriation, health status, and release of her sister, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who is imprisoned in the United States of America.
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Monday, hearing Siddiqui's petition, issued the notices against the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet over the government's failure to submit a report in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case.
Justice Ejaz expressed strong displeasure over the government for not submitting the required report about why the government was refusing to sign an amicus brief on Aafia case.
He noted in his written order, 'The government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.'
The IHC office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the federal government will be respondents. The replies of all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today (July 21).
Justice Ejaz stated that ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this High Court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly, and bringing it almost to its last breaths.
'This is yet another instance. The heresy I speak of now is besieging the dispensation of Justice by a Judge of the High Court by the device of the 'weekly roster' controlled by the office of the Chief Justice. It is both heart-rending and amusing at the same time, a blend of paradox that this High Court has become,' said the judge.
Justice Ejaz mentioned that he had passed the previous order giving the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the Additional Advocate General that inaction would leave him no choice but to proceed in contempt. The government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case.
He stated that for whatever reason, the government's case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court. The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this Court through its roster. 'The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold Court by the High Court establishment when he is on leave,' added the judge.
He pointed out that his leave was meant to start today and the roster of judges sitting for this week therefore did not include his name. 'The leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which I had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice in this and the other eases that ordered for listing today.'
The judge also said that on Thursday or perhaps Friday, he was informed through his PS by the Office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the Chief Justice. That seemed to me a trivial matter and he asked his PS to move an application accordingly.
He further said that he was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it.
He maintained, 'Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the Motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former. The correct legal position is that the Office cannot use the shoulder of the Chief Justice in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a Judge in an ongoing case.'
Justice Ejaz stated that the motivation of a Judge to hold Court on a day on which he is 'officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold Court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. 'I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold Court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. Gone are the days when a Judge could pass an order even while playing Golf or dining with his family if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a Courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case – were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business.
He said this is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. 'To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses.'
Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case until September 1.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025